The recommendations seem sensible. On retribution: "Throwing your husband's vintage wine collection down the loo . . . might seem like a therapeutic gesture when you're in the throes of rage and despair, but . . . judges will take a dim view of vindictive behaviour, so it's far better to hold your head up high and retain the civilized high ground."

書中的建議看起來很明智。關于報復：“怒火中燒、痛不欲生的時候，把丈夫珍藏的佳釀倒進馬桶……可能看起來似乎有點效果，但是……法官會懷疑這是一種報復性行為，因此昂首保持體面的做法要好得多。”

On being served with papers: "Legal letters are designed to be threatening, so don't get into a panic if letters from your spouse's lawyers seem overbearing. . . . Leave [your own lawyers] to deal with the legal jargon. That's what you're paying for."

關于法律文件：“法律信函的初衷就是為了嚇唬人，因此，如果配偶的律師來信看起來具有威脅性，也不要驚慌……讓你的律師來處理這些法律術語。花錢請他們就是干這個的。”

On keeping children clear of the battle zone: "Never use children as go-betweens. Children are not effective messengers and misunderstandings will ensue. You may also be revealing a range of anarchic emotions to your children which they are unable to assimilate."

關于讓孩子遠離離婚大戰：“不要拿孩子當中間人。孩子并不是有效的信使，反而會造成誤解。這樣做也會帶給孩子一種混亂的情緒，他們無法消化接受。”

On divvying up personal property: "The engagement ring is an outright gift given to the woman on the condition of marriage, and having met that condition, she is entitled to keep it even after the marriage's dissolution. If the ring is a precious heirloom, handed down on the paternal side, returning it is entirely at the woman's discretion."

關于分割個人財產：“訂婚戒指是男方以結婚為前提送給女方的禮物；既然結婚這一前提已經達成，即使婚姻破裂，女方仍有權保有訂婚戒指。如果這枚戒指是男方珍貴的家傳寶，是否將戒指歸還男方完全由女方做主。”

On parental responsibilities: "Don't allow roles to become polarised. If one parent is entirely responsible for the mundanities of everyday life (laundry, shopping, school, homework) and the other sweeps the children off their feet every weekend for a round of treats, outings and parental indulgence . . . the children will alternate between dissatisfaction and overstimulation, and eventually will become very unhappy . . . . The downtrodden parent will be understandably resentful. . . . Remember, your new life as divorced parents is really not about scoring points off each other, but ensuring that your children's life is stable, secure, and contented."

關于身為父母的責任：“不要讓雙方的角色極端化。如果一方完全負責孩子的日常生活（洗衣、購物、上學、家庭作業），而另一方每到周末就帶孩子吃大餐、出去玩，讓孩子沉浸在溺愛之中……那么孩子就會在不滿和過度刺激之間不停轉換，最終變得非常不開心……受壓迫的一方家長自然也會心生怨恨……記住，離異父母的新生活絕不是要在孩子心目中詆毀對方的形象，而是保證孩子生活穩定、安全和滿足。

Though the book is primarily directed to the British reader, and the specific legal process described is the English one, the advice usually transcends jurisdiction.

雖然這本書主要針對英國讀者，具體的法律流程也是建立在英國法律條款的基礎之上，但是書中的建議并不局限于法律范疇。

The book's British tone and tilt might make American readers most uncomfortable when it gets down to the hard-core etiquette stuff—like how to word the children's wedding invitations when the parents have remarried. ("Mr. John Robinson and Mrs. Edgar Forsythe request the pleasure of your company at the marriage of their daughter Caroline.") Some Americans will roll their eyes at such formalities while others will memorize them religiously, and many will do both. Most will be simply bewildered by passages like this one: "When a peeress (i.e. a duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess or baroness) obtains a divorce, the general rule is that she places her forename before her title, for example, Mary, Duchess of Hampshire."

這本書的風格偏英式，也更貼近英國文化，在觸及到核心的禮儀問題時，可能會令美國讀者感到為難。譬如，父母都已經再婚的情況下，在孩子的婚禮請柬中如何措辭（“約翰·羅賓遜先生和埃德加·弗西斯夫人恭請您參加小女卡羅琳的婚禮。”）有些美國人面對這種禮節會不屑一顧，有些人則會虔誠地記在心里，而許多人可能兩種心理兼而有之。大多數美國人可能會為這樣的段落感到困惑不已：“貴族夫人（即公爵夫人、侯爵夫人、伯爵夫人、子爵夫人或男爵夫人）離婚后，一般規則是她把自己的名字放在頭銜前面，例如，瑪麗，漢普郡公爵夫人。”

I wouldn't recommend this book to Ron Perelman, but for pragmatic decouplers navigating divorce for the first time and trying to keep the interests of their children paramount, it could prove useful, comforting, and even wise

我不會向羅恩·佩雷爾曼（露華濃化妝品公司的掌門人，曾經多次離婚）推薦這本書，但會推薦給第一次離婚并嘗試保護孩子利益的人。這本書對于他們來說非常有用、令人寬慰，甚至可以說是睿智。